treasury_yield

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify data freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or return format. This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and no output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with two words, front-loaded and zero waste. However, this brevity comes at the cost of under-specification, but for this dimension alone, it scores high due to efficient structure.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool does beyond the name, how to use parameters, or what to expect in return, making it insufficient for effective agent use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions none of the three parameters (interval, maturity, datatype), leaving their purpose, allowed values, and defaults completely undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Fetch treasury yield' restates the tool name 'treasury_yield' with a generic verb 'fetch', making it tautological. It doesn't specify what treasury yield data is retrieved (e.g., U.S. Treasury yields, historical vs. current, source), nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like 'federal_funds_rate' or 'inflation' that might provide related financial data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone among many financial data tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.